1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.--The respondents Nos. I to 5 were tried for the murder of Haji Abdur Rahman and his son Saeedur Rahman, by the learned Sessions Judge, Peshawar, under sections 301/149, 301/149, 143, 404 and 379/149, P. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the respondents of all the charges by judgment dated the 30th January 1971. The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1971, which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, by judgment dated the 29th March 1973. The petitioners have challenged this judgment in this petition for special leave to appeal. They seek permission to file au appeal against the said judgment of the High Court.
2. The prosecution case is that on the 13th October, 1968 at about 9:00 a.m., Saeedur Rahman deceased, Sabz A.I P. W. 9 and Azizur Rahman P. W. 10, went to Torangzai for the repair of Saeedur Rahman's rifle. They returned after an hour and got down at the tonga station. Saeedur Rahman bad some digestive disorder, therefore, they proceeded to their house through the fields. Saeedur Rahman went aside to answer the call of nature. They all gathered near the well of Ayub Khan when the accused Wasil Khan, Shaukat Khan, Afs3r Khan and Hayat Khan fired at them from the graveyard. Saeedur Rahman was hit and fell down near the well. Azizur Rahman was injured. Sabz A.I and Aziz-ur-Rahman took shelter behind a platform. They were fired at by the accused Misal Khan, but none of them was hit. Thereupon, Misal Khan shouted at the other accused to surround them, both took to their heels. The accused Hayat Khan fired at Saeedur Rahman from a close range, and took away his pistol. Sabz A.I who was carrying the rifle of Saeedur Rahman, dropped the same and it was taken away by accused Afsar Khan. All of the five respondents then proceeded towards hay-stacks and from behind it the accused Misal Khan, fired at Haji Abdur Rahmsn who was coming from the village. He was hit and fell down. The three accused, Misal Khan, Wasil Khan and Hayat Khan reached him and fired at him again. Wasil Khan removed and took away his pistol and then all the accused decamped towards their houses.
3. The prosecution case is supported by the ocular testimony of Sabz A.I P. W. 9, Azizur Rahman P. W.
4. 10 and Mosharraf P. W.
11. According to Sabz A.I and Azizur Rahman P. Ws., they along with Saeedur Rah man were returning from village Turangzai where they had taken a rifle for repair. When they reached near their village, they went towards the fields as Saecdur Rahman wanted to ease himself. Thereafter, they started towards their house and reached near the well of Ayub Khan, they saw Wasal Khan, Shaukat, Afsar Khan and Hayat Khan accused in the graveyard. Wasal Khan who had a Topak, Shaukat and Afsar had a Topak and Hayat had a Tomancha, started firing at them, as a resu?t of which all the three were injured, out of whom Sacedur Rehman fell down. The remaining two, namely, Sabz A.I and Azizur Rahman started running when Misal Khan fired at them. The five accused then went near Saeedur Rahman and took away his Tamancha after Hayat accuse) had fired a shot at him from a close range. The rifle which was with Sabz A.I fell from him and it was taken away by Afsar Khan accused. The five accused, according to the P. Ws. Then took shelter behind some hay-stack, from where they fired at Abdur Rahman who was coming from the village, as a result of which Abdur Rahman fell down. Misal Khan, Wasal Khan and Hayat accused then came near Abdur Rahman and after firing shots at him from a close range, Wasal took away the pistol from him.
5. It is alleged that Mosharraf P. W. 11 who was working in his field near the spot, also saw the occurrence, which he described almost in the same way as mentioned above.
6. The learned Judges of the High Court have examined the evidence of the prosecution. They have found discrepancies and contradictions in the statements made in the F.
1. R. And at the trial. Sabz A.I in his report has stated that firing was going on between Abdur Rahman deceased on the one hand and Wasal and tklisal accused on the other and that while passing on the way he was injured with the shots fired by Shaukat, Afsar and Hayat.
7. At the trial, he has given a different story which has already been described above In our opinion, in these circumstances, this witness was tightly disbelieved by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. We are also satisfied that the statement of Azizur Rahman is full of contradiction and it has been rightly observed by the High Court that it is so much exaggerated that no reliance can be placed on it. According to him, he and his companions were fired at in the first instance from the graveyard. The graveyard was at a distance of 36 paces from the place where the P. W. And his companions were present. It is difficult to understand that a after the accused persons had taken position behind the graveyard, how it was possible for the P. Ws. To see all the accused. The High Court was right in observing that they cola d not note the type of weapon which each of the accused had. The statement of this witness is also contradicted by the fact that no empty was found in the graveyard and all the empties were found at points 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the site plan.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the judgment of the High Court dated the 29th March 1973, we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court is not perverse and the conclusion reached by them is based on proper appreciation of the evidence. In these circumstances, there is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.